7/13/15 7/13/15

2015 at dawn.com)

Entangled in the Greek debt crisis, few European policymakers had the time or interest this week to pay attention to the summit talks in the Russian city of Ufa between the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS).True, Europe has its hands full with Greece and the looming possibility of a Greek exit from the Eurozone. But the world doesn’t stop for Europe. And pretending that the BRICS and their self-confident leaders don’t matter — or matter little — is not an option.Discussions about the rapidly-transforming world, the role and influence of the BRICS and Europe’s relations with the emerging powers appear to be off the European Union agenda. For now, the focus is rightly on the existential threat posed by Grexit, the acrimony the Greek crisis has triggered across the EU and the worsening relationship among Eurozone leaders.Solving the Greek problem should of course take priority. But Europeans know that more is at stake. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has so far been most vocal in signalling his fears that the fury unleashed by the difficulties in Greece is damaging the very existence of the EU. But this thought is also in many other minds. If Europe can’t get its house in order, it really does run the risk of becoming irrelevant on an increasingly crowded global stage.For the moment, most Europeans seem to fall into two categories: those who fear the rapidly-changing world order and the increasingly long list of nations clamouring for a stronger role on the world stage and those who hope that if they look the other way, firm up their bonds with the United States, the world won’t change too much and the BRICS will gradually fade away.There are some, wiser, people in the middle: they may not be enthusiastic about the changes being made to the global status quo; but they also know that times are changing fast and that Europe needs to adapt, adjust and accommodate.It was on the advice of such people that despite strong pressure from the US not to do so, several EU countries decided to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) set up by China.While many Europeans voice fear that China is “buying up” European assets, cooler heads are urging the EU to join forces with China’s ambitious ‘One Belt, One Road’ transport networks to boost domestic growth and jobs.Similar arguments for and against cooperating with emerging nations are likely to come to the fore as Europeans discuss membership of the New Development Bank (NDB) being set up by the BRICS to fund projects in member countries.Headquartered in Shanghai, the bank is expected to be operational by end of 2015. Once fully operational, it will become an alternative financing source for the BRICS nations and other emerging markets.Like the head of the AIIB, the first chief of the BRICS bank, India’s K. V. Kamath has been quoted as saying that the NDB sees other multilateral lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) as partners rather than rivals.And yet many continue to be suspicious. The US and Japan have not yet joined the AIIB and many EU policymakers continue to voice fears that the new banks will fall short of high Western standards of transparency and accountability.The BRICS have made clear that they don’t really care. The Old Guard is welcome to come on board, but the world is moving on and they won’t stop for the laggards.Russia, given its tense relations with the West following the crisis in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, has taken the toughest line in its dealing with Europe and America. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov underlined in Ufa, emerging nations represent a “new polycentric system of international relations” and demonstrate new global centres of power.As he shook hands with his Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian counterparts, a beaming Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear that he was far from the sad and isolated man that the West wants him to be.And it’s not just about the BRICS. An array of newly-empowered nations and groupings are challenging Europe and America’s dominance of the post World War II order. Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey and Australia are part of MIKTA which claims to act as a bridge between old and new powers.New Zealand says it is the champion of “small nations” without whose support nothing can be achieved on the global stage. The Group of 20 remains relevant as a forum which brings together industrialised and emerging countries.And then there is also the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which EU and Nato policymakers also tend to shrug off as an impotent “paper tiger”.They shouldn’t. As India and Pakistan set out on the road to membership of the SCO, it is clear that while the security organisation does not see itself as a rival to Nato, it does intend to make its voice heard on global security challenges.Underlining just how significantly the world has changed, the five BRICS countries and the six SCO members which include China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan — joined by India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia which have observer status — held a joint summit in Ufa.The Greek crisis was on the BRICS agenda of course. While Europe may not like the new world out there, emerging nations know that in an interconnected and interdependent world, what happens in Europe affects them. And that a failed Europe is in nobody’s interest.

5/11/15 5/11/15

View from abroad: When it comes to Hungary, Europe should practise what it preaches (Originally published 09/05/2015 at dawn.com)

Believe it or not, there is more to the European Union than the recent elections in Britain and London’s erratic and volatile relationship with Brussels.The EU is also not just about the dire financial and economic straits in which Greece finds itself — and unrelenting speculation about whether or not Athens is ready to exit the troubled Eurozone.In addition to fears of a Brexit and Grexit, Berlin is mired in a new spying scandal which threatens to engulf German Chancellor Angela Merkel.And, of course, the EU is under attack over its less-than-impressive response to the humanitarian tragedy unfolding on its southern shores as hundreds of refugees and economic migrants drown even as they seek to enter “Fortress Europe”.The EU’s southern and eastern neighbourhoods are in turmoil. Relations with Russia remain tense and EU governments have no influence over events in the Middle East.These and other troubles facing the 28-nation bloc capture the media spotlight and lead to endless hand-wringing over the EU’s future.All of these troubles deserve attention. But, interestingly, neither the media nor EU policymakers appear to be paying serious attention to a country — Hungary — whose leaders appears intent on defying many of the key values — human rights, democracy and tolerance — that the EU holds so dear.It is an important paradox. The EU wields enormous power over countries which are seeking membership of the 28-nation club. But once a so-called “candidate country” joins the Union, Brussels loses much of its influence over the future direction of a “member state”.This is exactly what has happened with Hungary and some other “new” EU countries which joined the Union earlier this decade.Before it entered the EU club, Hungary had to meet very strict criteria on issues like democracy and adherence to the principles of a market economy. Human rights standards had to be adhered to. Every move made by the government was scrutinised and judged.No longer. Hungary is now accused of a host of sins — and while Brussels often chides and scolds, it has little — actually it has NO — power to change the course of events in the country.There is no doubt: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is the bad boy of Europe. He cultivates close links with President Vladimir Putin at a time when the rest of the EU is seeking to distance itself from the mercurial Russian leader.Putin’s visit to Hungary earlier this year was widely seen as a defiance of the EU’s decision to keep cool diplomatic relations with Russia.More controversially, Orban has sent shock waves across the EU by insisting that the bloc should protect its borders against immigration by using military force because it doesn’t need new migrants.While other EU leaders in Brussels struggled to come up with a coherent plan to stem the tide of immigrants seeking shelter in Europe, Orban urged tougher measures.“Europe’s borders must be protected. We cannot be like a piece of cheese with holes in it so that they [immigrants] can be crossing in and out. Serious police and military steps must be taken and also steps that they remain at home,” he said.Going even further, Orban said the Hungarian government wanted to be able to detain all those who cross borders illegally, something that is only allowed in exceptional cases under EU law. It also wanted to have migrants work to cover the costs of their accommodation or detention in Hungary.In a questionnaire to be sent out to eight million citizens over 18 years of age, Hungarians will be asked to answer 12 questions on whether “the mismanagement of the immigration question by Brussels may have something to do with increased terrorism”.“The questions are leading and manipulative,” according to Dutch MEP Sophie In’ t Veld who said the whole questionnaire was “horrible”. Her colleague Cecilia Wikstrom, a Swedish liberal MEP, said it showed how Orban is distancing Hungary from Europe and “transforming Hungary into a mini-Russia”.There are suggestions that Orban, whose Fidesz party has seen a plunge in polls recently, is seeking to embrace issues championed by the far-right Jobbik party, the largest opposition force in Hungary.Hungary’s EU partners are equally vexed at the prime minister’s statements in favour of re-introducing the death penalty.Orban “should immediately make clear that this is not his intention. Would it be his intention, it would be a fight,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has warned.Budapest has since then retracted Orban’s statements, saying it has no plans to restore the death penalty.Worryingly for Brussels, Orban has also staged an autocratic crackdown on the nation’s press, which the independent watchdog Freedom House now ranks as only “partly free”.While the EU has so far managed to keep Hungary in check, the country is a worrying example of how things can go very wrong in the heart of Europe and the European Union.EU officials and members of the European Parliament rant and rave about Hungary and Orban but the stark truth is that while the EU wields a huge stick before a country joins the club — demanding changes in government rules and regulations and overall conduct — its influence dims once a country becomes a member.So, while the talk in Brussels is understandably about Britain, Greece and Germany, it is time that EU leaders exerted some real pressure to bring Hungary in line with Europe’s standards of conduct.It’s about consistency, coherence in the EU and above all making sure that Europe practices what it preaches to the rest of the world.

3/23/15 3/23/15

View from abroad : Transatlantic alliance: fact and fiction (Originally published 21/03/2015 at dawn.com)

So here’s the fiction: America and Europe stand united against the “rest of the world”. The transatlantic alliance is strong, solid and a bulwark against the machinations of China and the world’s other emerging nations.Washington and Brussels are like-minded, like-thinking entities which see eye to eye on almost everything. Together, they can still rule the world.Perhaps in the 20th century — but no longer. Here are the facts: the world has changed from unipolar to multi-polar or even “no-polar”. For all its military might, the US no longer rules the world. For proof, look no further than the way Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is obstructing progress on US-Iran nuclear talks.And here are some more facts: America and the EU are divided over the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, illegal renditions, the use of torture and the revelations of spying by the National Security Agency as revealed by Edward Snowden.They disagree over how to deal with Russia and Ukraine. And while America sees China mainly as a strategic competitor, Europe is happy to work with Beijing on tackling many 21st century challenges.Certainly, there are some points of convergence. Significantly, negotiations are underway on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), seen by many as the last attempt by a declining West to impose its economic rule-making model on a watching world.But even as they seek agreement on TTIP, many European states are posing the BIGGEST challenge to the US by deciding to join the Chinese-led, Chinese-inspired $50 billion Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which Washington continues to firmly oppose.So far, EU members Britain, France, Germany and Italy have said they want to be founding members of the AIIB. But other Europeans will undoubtedly join their ranks.The story is not just about Washington vs Beijing; it’s about a changing world order, the shift of power from west to east, the rise of China and its challenge to years of US domination.It’s about the need to change and reform post-World War II multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.And it’s about a world desperately in need of cash, especially for badly-needed infrastructure projects — and a rising China which has more money than it can handle.To be fair, US Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew has said that the US was not opposed to the creation of the AIIB. “There are obviously vast needs in Asia and many parts of the world for infrastructure investment,” he told a Congressional hearing on the status of the international financial system.The US concern, he said, has always been whether such an international investment bank will adhere to the high standards such as in protecting workers’ rights, the environment and dealing properly with corruption issues.The bank, proposed by President Xi Jinping in 2013 during a visit to Indonesia, is expected to be launched formally by the end of this year.All Asian countries can apply to become founding members until March 31.Chinese experts say they are looking less for European financial support and more for Europe’s management experience to share with the AIIB.France, Germany and Italy announced they would join the Bank after Britain said it was doing so last week. Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific region which had come under pressure from Washington to stay out of the new bank, has also said that it will now rethink that position. South Korea is also expected to join.Other European countries are expected to follow the bigger EU nations’ lead. And why not? Like most Asian countries, Europeans are looking to invest in new infrastructure to raise levels of connectivity across the continent.Policymakers are hoping that China will be an important contributor to the 300 billion dollar infrastructure fund announced earlier this year by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.Britain hopes to establish itself as the number one destination for Chinese investment. China is also a strong investor in Germany and in France.Analysts point out that the US has misplayed its hands and that the best way to ensure that China doesn’t dominate the AIIB is to fill it with other powers. This, they argue would result in much stricter governance rules and safeguards.The AIIB is not the only regional project China has proposed that Washington will have to grapple with. Beijing’s “one belt, one road” Silk Road projects are moving rapidly from theoretical to actual, much to the dismay of America and some European states.The Asian Development Bank has estimated Asia’s infrastructure needs at $750 billion a year, far beyond the ADB’s capacity. With connectivity the buzzword across the region, the new Bank is expected to be very busy pumping money into major infrastructure projects.China has also been quick to respond to huge and acute infrastructure needs in the developing world, in contrast with the lengthy project processes required by other lenders.In response to the Chinese initiatives, the Japanese government has also said it wants to focus on infrastructure projects in developing countries.World leaders at the G20 Summit in Brisbane in 2014 recognised infrastructure demand in the developing world as a new source of global growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.The transatlantic trade deal may see the light of the day by end-2015 — even though negotiations are tough and public resistance to the pact is high. But even if they do clinch an agreement on trade, America and Europe will not always share a similar vision of life in a rapidly-changing 21st century.

3/16/15 3/16/15

View from Abroad: Prepare for ‘hard power’ Europe (Originally published 14/03/2015 at dawn.com)

You would think the European Union has its hands full trying to ease the Eurozone crisis and make sure Greece stays within the monetary union. You also would think the 28-nation bloc was happy with its role as the world’s smartest “soft power”, with no boots on the ground but many diplomats, aid workers and trade specialists ready and willing to work for constructive change in an increasingly volatile world.You would be wrong. Forget gentle persuasion and change by incentive rather than coercion. Carrots over sticks. The EU now wants its own army. It’s a tough world and the EU wants to play as tough as the others.Resuscitating a long-held but equally long-discarded concept, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has called for the creation of a European army to make Europe count on the global stage.No more soft words. It’s going to be about soldiers, guns and aircraft carriers. Europe wants to be a hard-nosed hard power, not a softie.Certainly, Europe is right to be worried — and to want to play hard ball. The world in 2015 is messy, chaotic and often violent, with no clear centre of power. In Europe, as Russia flexes its muscles over Ukraine, many decry the end of the post-World War security order.In Asia, re-emerging nations are clamouring for recognition, jostling each other to gain the upper hand as regional and global leaders. Everywhere, international norms and institutions built in the last century are under stress, and seemingly unable to cope with the increasing demands and insecurity of the 21st century.Juncker has said a European army would restore the EU’s foreign policy standing and show it is serious about defending its values. And he insisted that it would not be in competition with Nato, the US-led Western military alliance.“With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state,” the Commission chief said in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.He added: “One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”Juncker’s proposal does not come out of the blue. The EU has long harboured the idea of an army and has been working hard to forge a credible common security and defence policy for several decades.European military missions are active in the Balkans, Africa and parts of Asia. The soldiers are not there, however, to fight but to monitor elections, keep the peace and manage conflicts.Also, the EU already has battle groups that are manned on a rotational basis and meant to be available as a rapid reaction force. But they have never been used in a crisis.Finally, Europe’s defence is assured by Nato. Put bluntly, if push comes to shove, the US will come to Europe’s assistance with its military might.The timing of the latest proposal is certainly linked to criticism of what many view as Europe’s lacklustre response to Russia’s annexing of Crimea last year and support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.The scene is clearly set for another long and painful — and distracting — intra-European debate. For starters, Germany likes the idea, Britain does not.German Defence Minster Ursula von der Leyen, underlined in an interview that “our future as Europeans will at some point be with a European army.”The UK government spokesman has warned, however that “our position is crystal clear that defence is a national, not an EU responsibility and that there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European army.”Geoffrey Van Orden, a conservative member of the European Parliament has accused Juncker of living in a “fantasy world”. “If our nations faced a serious security threat, who would we want to rely on — Nato or the EU? The question answers itself,” he said.Nato isn’t too happy either. The civilian and military heads of Nato have said they would welcome increased EU defence spending but cautioned the bloc against duplicating efforts.Analysts say the fundamental problem with the proposal is that, without full political union, it has no chance of becoming a credible force. So long as fierce national rivalries exist at the heart of policymaking, a common army would quickly find itself reduced to a state of impotence if required to deal with any threat to an EU state.EU member states do not often see eye to eye on major global security issues. During the 2011 Libya campaign, for example, Britain and France played a leading role in the air campaign, while Germany’s staunch opposition meant that Berlin wouldn’t even provide air-to-air refuelling tankers.More recently, deep divisions have arisen over how to tackle Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine, with Germany and Italy reluctant to support the economic sanctions advocated by Britain and its allies.Many argue that instead of getting caught up in acrimonious debates on a European army, the EU should focus on intensifying member states’ defence cooperation.“Whatever was Jean-Claude Juncker thinking when he called for the creation of an EU army? The notion may have appeal in Germany and perhaps in Luxembourg, too. Elsewhere, it serves only to supply Europhobes with more evidence of Brussels’s reflexive urge to expand its power,” said Nick Witney, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.Whitney may be right. But Juncker is in no mood to back down. And if Germany, the EU’s most influential member state likes the idea — and France opts in — one day there will be a European army — of sorts.

2/16/15 2/16/15

View From Abroad: European lessons for Asian security (Originally published 14/02/2015 at dawn.com)

The just-negotiated ceasefire to stem the conflict in eastern Ukraine may or may not last. But the hard work put in by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French leader Francois Hollande as they negotiated for over 18 hours with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russia’s Vladimir Putin points to the still-potent and constructive security role that European states can play in their neighbourhood.It also underlines that — when it comes to the crunch — it’s Germany, France, and sometimes Britain, rather than the European Union which can do the hard labour involved in defusing tensions and securing a semblance of peace.True, the crisis has spotlighted divisions in the European Union over relations with Russia. The current sanctions regime against Moscow is not popular with all EU states.And certainly, the collapse of previous ceasefires has stoked doubts as to whether this one will hold. But before they throw up their hands in despair and accept confrontation with Russia — or follow America in seeking to send military aid to the Ukrainian army — European leaders will certainly try — and try again — to secure peace in the neighbourhood.And the lesson that peace is worth patiently, painstakingly and repeatedly striving for is an important one for Asia’s many star-crossed nations.This is also why the new European Security Strategy that the EU intends to hammer out by the end of the year should not ignore the different ways in which Europe can help Asia to deal with its many security challenges.Much has changed in the world since the last European Security Strategy was released in 2003, in the aftermath of the Iraq war. As EU foreign and security policy chief Federica Mogherini pointed out at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, the world today is a disorderly place. “The world is far from being a unipolar one, nor is it truly multipolar ... maybe we are living in times of an absence of poles,” Mogherini underlined, adding: “The big question for all of us is ... how do we manage complexity?”Asians are also struggling with the same challenge. For the first time in history, Asia is home to four — even five — important powers: a rising and increasingly assertive China, Japan that wants more influence, Korea searching for an expanded regional role, India which is being wooed by many as a counterweight to China and Asean, the regional grouping which has made peace and cooperation its leitmotif for many years.Trade and investment are the backbone of EU-Asia relations so far. But an EU-Asia conversation on security is set to be the new frontier. The EU cannot afford to be outside the loop of the dramatic geopolitical power games, rivalry and tension being played out in Asia between China, Japan and India — and the 10 south-east Asian members of Asean. Increased spending on arms across Asia is one indication that the region feels insecure, fragile and uneasy.The so-called Asian “paradox” — the fact that the region’s economies are closely knit together but governments are still grappling with historical tensions, is pushing some in Asia to take another, closer look at how Europe has been able to deal with its own tensions.Asian perceptions of security are also changing. The focus on territorial security is shifting to the importance of non-traditional security threats, such as climate change, pandemics, extremism and human trafficking, with some Asians putting the emphasis on “human security”. Across Asia, there is a recognition of the need for a collective or cooperative security architecture. But cooperative security in Asia remains underdeveloped, lacking collective security, regional peacekeeping and conflict resolution functions.Differing threat perceptions, mutual distrust, territorial disputes, concerns over sovereignty make things very difficult.But as their views of security evolve, for many in Asia, the EU is the prime partner for dealing with non-traditional security dilemmas, including food, water and energy security as well as climate change.Asian views of Europe’s security role are changing. Unease about the dangerous political and security fault lines that run across the region and the lack of a strong security architecture has prompted many in Asia to take a closer look at Europe’s experience in ensuring peace, easing tensions and handling conflicts.As Asia grapples with historical animosities and unresolved conflicts, earlier scepticism about Europe’s security credentials are giving way to recognition of Europe’s “soft power” in peace-making and reconciliation, crisis management, conflict resolution and preventive diplomacy, human rights, the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. Europeans, too, are becoming more aware of the global implications of instability in Asia. Clearly, the EU as the world’s largest trading bloc needs safe trading routes and sea lanes.Also, Europeans are now recognising that fragile peace in Asia will have an enormous impact on global security. That is one reason that the EU has signed Asean’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and is seeking entry to the East Asia Summit in order to sit beside the United States and Russia.An important challenge for the EU in its relations with Asia is to retain its identity vis-à-vis the much more dominant role played by the US. As it fashions its distinctive security role in Asia, the EU must make an effort to its own distinct profile in promoting multilateral approaches, the rule of law, good governance and regional integration.And that’s what makes the progress made with Russia over Ukraine so important.

2/2/15 2/2/15

View From Abroad: Ties with China are bright spot in Europe’s foreign policy (Originally published 31/01/2015 at dawn.com)

The new European Union Commission, in office since November last year, likes to talk of a “fresh start” for Europe. There is upbeat talk of streamlining EU actions, simplifying procedures, launching a new era of mega investment projects and revving up growth.The reality is more complicated. The election in Greece of a new anti-austerity coalition government headed by Alexis Tsipras has highlighted growing dissent and anger in the Eurozone over the unrelentingly rigid fiscal policies imposed by Germany and followed by the EU.The much-publicised 315 billion euro investment plan launched by the new European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker may look impressive on paper but is seen by many as too woolly to really generate the growth and jobs that Europe needs so desperately.Additionally, the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris earlier in January means that the Far Right and anti-Islamic parties continue to gain traction and become ever more dominant in the debate on immigration.It’s equally bleak on the foreign policy front. Relations with Russia remain tense. Although there is almost agreement among the 28 EU nations on the need to maintain sanctions against Moscow, depending on their national histories and experiences, European foreign ministers’ attitudes towards Moscow range from very tough (the Baltic states and some Central and Eastern European countries) to soft (Greece and Italy).In the south, the EU is struggling to forge a coherent and meaningful strategy towards Turkey and its other Southern Mediterranean neighbours as well as the Islamic State (IS). European governments also remain divided over whether or not to recognise an independent Palestinian state.Further afield, relations with Japan, South Korea and India remain largely lacklustre and uninspiring. Unlike US President Barack Obama, no European leader can claim to have a glamorous bromance with India’s celebrity Prime Minister Narendra Modi or Japan’s Shinzo Abe.Not surprisingly therefore to many observers in Asia, EU foreign policy seems slow and plodding, focused almost exclusively on trade and business and not enough on a long-term strategy for closer political and security ties.There is one striking exception, however: China. Surprisingly in a world of flux, EU-China relations remain relatively strong, vibrant and multifaceted even as Europe dithers over Russia, India and other emerging nations.The point was made at a meeting of European think tanks in Brussels this week, with experts agreeing that Europe and China must up their engagement. Such consensus is rare in Brussels, especially among academics.Certainly, it’s their mutual economic interdependence that keeps EU-China ties dynamic and buoyant. China’s growth rates may be slowing down but its appetite for European goods and investments continues to be crucial in determining the pace and success of Europe’s economic recovery.China’s economic transformation — and plans for even more change in the coming years — demands that it has access to European know-how, experience and technology.China’s reform agenda also gives European companies myriad opportunities for enhanced trade and investments. Both sides are negotiating a formal treaty to further boost mutual investment flows.Increasingly, also in Brussels there is recognition that a deeper EU-China relationship is important in order to polish Europe’s foreign policy credentials.Europe’s one-time ambition to shape China into a “responsible” international stakeholder now appears hopelessly out-of-date and patronising. But there is no doubt that the EU needs to engage with China on a range of urgent foreign and security policy issues including relations with, Russia, Iran’s nuclear plans, policy towards the IS, fighting Ebola and combating climate change.Significantly, China has invested time, effort and money into upping its relations with Europe. Beijing is working on several tracks at the same time. The focus in recently years has been on further consolidating the China-Germany “special relationship” but also reinforcing ties with former communist nations in Central and Eastern Europe, countries in the Western Balkans and also Nordic states.Responding to critics who complained that Beijing was paying too much attention to European member states and not enough to the EU, Chinese leaders have made it a point in recent months to visit Brussels.The result is a surprisingly solid and well-rounded EU-China relationship which could even become a model for other Asian countries.A key problem, however, is that the EU still treats China as just another emerging nation rather than the regional and global mammoth that it has become. The emphasis is on bread and butter issues like trade and investments, urbanisation, good and valid subjects but do not reflect Beijing’s increasing global clout and outreach.The EU should be looking at thrashing out a new narrative for China which is truly strategic and considers issues like global governance, sustainable development goals and international terrorism.In other words, as the EU and China prepare to celebrate 40 years of their relationship, the EU-China relationship should move from the ritualistic to the strategic — as quickly as possible.

10/21/14 10/21/14

View from Abroad: Western nightmares are just bad dreams (Originally published 19/10/2014 at dawn.com)

It's the stuff of Western nightmares: imagine if, one day, a strong China and a weak but assertive Russia “gang up” against the United States and Europe, winning more friends and allies and imposing their writ on the rest of the world?The recent high profile meetings between Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Russian President Vladimir Putin have been watched carefully — and fretfully — in all Western capitals with uneasy policymakers seeking to understand if this is just a passing show of affection or if the two countries are planning to build a more solid partnership.Beijing has made clear that it has no intention of being part of any geopolitical power play being hatched by Moscow. China’s interests are global. Indeed before he met Putin, Li was in Germany striking two billion euro worth of business deals. He then headed to Italy for more headline-grabbing commercial overtures.Beijing’s standard line is that it has no allies, only friends. That’s not how Russia views the world. Russia in contrast is under Western sanctions. The EU is struggling to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas while the Nato military alliance talks menacingly about Russian actions in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea.Some warn it is the beginning of a second Cold War. Clearly, it isn’t. The multipolar world today is a very different place from what it was in the Cold War years.Still, some thing is afoot. The Russians are working overtime to woo the Chinese. Beijing is clearly interested in accessing more Russian oil and gas, providing Moscow with new markets as Europe diversifies away from Russian energy. Some 50 agreements and memorandums of understanding are reported to be signed during Li’s visit to Moscow, including in areas related to high-speed transit and finance. China is also eager to supply Russia with fruit and vegetables, products that Moscow is no longer importing from Europe.Western attention is focused on Russian-Chinese cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which some in the West view as a potential competitor for Nato. And the recent decision to launch the BRICS bank is seen as a joint challenge by Russia and China to the post-war liberal order and the supremacy of the Bretton Woods institutions.Both China and Russia are often on the same side on tackling global flashpoints, eschewing military intervention unless sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.There’s no doubt, however, that while it may want to stay friends and do business with Moscow, China has no interest in being seen as Russia’s best friend. As friendships go, in fact, the focus in many envious Western capitals is on the ‘special relationship’ between China and Germany.While in Berlin, Li and German Chancellor Angela Merkel signed deals worth approximately US$18.1 billion, covering cooperation in areas including agriculture, automotive, telecom, healthcare and education.Li requested that Germany help to relax the EU’s high-tech export restrictions to China and continue expanding bilateral trade and investment. He further stated that the two countries should continue working together on feasibility studies concerning the proposed China-EU Free Trade Agreement. The two sides also signed guidelines covering 110 cooperative agreements over the next five to 10 years.At the Hamburg Summit organised by Germany’s top industrialists that was attended by Premier Li the message was clear: China is not only the the biggest market for German companies, it is also a growing one. China’s huge national reform programme agenda, opens up exciting new export and investment opportunities for German — and other European — companies. Discussions focused on China’s massive urbanisation needs which can be met by European companies.Chinese investments into Germany and the EU are soaring. Significantly, unlike many other countries, China has shown a strong interest in the future course of Asem, the Asia Europe Meeting forum which is often criticised for being a mere talk shop.At the Asem summit in Milan last week, Li waxed lyrical about Asem’s role in improving connectivity between Asia and Europe, underlining his vision of building a Silk Road between Asia.Li knows he is on a winning streak. As the Financial Times newspaper reported recently, Chinese investors are surging into the EU.In 2010, the total stock of Chinese direct investment in the EU was just over 6.1bn euro — less than what was held by India, Iceland or Nigeria. By the end of 2012, Chinese investment stock had quadrupled, to nearly 27bn euro, according to figures compiled by Deutsche Bank.Not surprisingly, the EU and China are in the process of negotiating a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting each others’ investments but also ensuring better marker access.China is clearly not about to ditch Russia. But Beijing’s focus is on the growing markets of Europe. Western policymakers can sleep easy. For many nights.

10/7/14 10/7/14

View from Abroad: Destination Brussels (Originally published 04/10/2014 at dawn.com)

The flight from Belgrade to Brussels is short and sweet, taking barely two hours. But Serbia and other western Balkan states face a long and frustrating wait before they become members of the European Union.Serbs say they aren’t too worried. They already are part of the “European family” and will be EU members before too long, fulfilling a long-held ambition of joining the European mainstream. But at the impressive Belgrade Security Forum that I attended last week, the mood of the participants — Serbs and others from neighbouring ex-Yugoslav nations — is palpably sombre.The incoming president of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, has just said he does not plan to accept any new members of the EU for another five years. Forum attendees say they weren’t really expecting to join the EU very soon. But Juncker’s decision to stress the point is making every one uneasy and very uncomfortable.The prospect of the Balkans enlargement morphing into a “Turkey scenario” is on people’s mind. Ankara has been negotiating with the EU for almost a decade. Progress is insultingly slow. Talks open, then stall, then come to a halt.There’s no final date for EU entry. Meanwhile, Turkey is looking to play a more proactive role in its troubled neighbourhood than in Europe.Optimistic participants at the Belgrade Forum say they will use the next five years to continue negotiations, ironing out difficulties in all the multiple “chapters” that are under discussion. “We will be ready to join in five years and one day,” one speaker underlines, referring to Juncker’s timeline. “That should be our ambition and our goal.”But others are more realistic. The EU is sending them a strong political message of disinterest and “enlargement fatigue”. Juncker’s new team does not even include a top official solely in charge of expansion. Instead the new commissioner, an Austrian, will be responsible for the EU’s discredited “neighbourhood policy” which deals with ex-Soviet states as well as “enlargement negotiations”. Most see this as a policy downgrade.A former ambassador from the Czech Republic whose country joined the EU in the so-called “Big Bang” enlargement in 2004 which saw the entry of eight former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe as well as Malta and Cyprus, says Balkan states should not worry because membership of the EU is always a painstaking, nit-picking, technocratic exercise. Stay patient, he advises.A colleague from Croatia, which joined the EU in 2011, says Serbia and others won’t be inside the EU for at least another 10 years. “And that’s the optimistic scenario,” he says wryly.No one wonder that Twitter messages during the Belgrade conference warn that “Europe has lost its magic in the Balkans.” Could it be, asks another message, that all the western Balkan states could join in one go in 2020? Another advises the would-be members to lie low. With European public opinion in anti-expansion mood, it’s “better to slip in silently rather than with fireworks exploding”.It wasn’t supposed to be so complicated. After all bringing in eastern nations is an essential part of the “European project” of peace and prosperity for all neighbours. Enlargement is viewed as the best and most successful example of European “soft power”, that much-touted ability to prompt change and transformation through trade, aid and reform.But times have changed. The Eurozone crisis and the ensuing economic slowdown have made the EU wary of spending on non-EU members and of taking on more financial responsibilities. The rise of the Far Right parties across Europe is an indication that “foreigners”, even those who are European, are no longer welcome.And the western Balkans have their share of economic, political, social and ethnic problems to solve. The region was gripped by devastating ethnic wars in the 1990s. Neighbour killed neighbour while the EU looked on helplessly. There were allegations of war crimes, Nato air strikes against Serbian targets and finally the signature of peace agreements, including the Dayton accords in 1995 which ended the war in Bosnia. The war in Kosovo ended in 1999 with the Nato bombing of Serbia.In fact, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is currently being tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague for the July 1995 murder of thousands of Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica.The region has moved on since then but scars remain and relations among neighbours can still be strained. Also, organised crime and corruption are rife. Many economies are faltering and foreign investments are modest. However, Italy’s Fiat has just started producing cars at its new manufacturing plant in Serbia and Chinese investors are scouring around for business opportunities. There is hope for the future.And then there’s the question of relations with Russia. Serbian colleagues tell me they feel under pressure to choose between Moscow and Brussels, pointing to a dilemma which Ukraine also faced before Russia’s invasion of Crimea earlier this year.The Forum panel I take part in seeks bravely to seek common ground between the western transatlantic agenda and Russia’s competing Eurasian vision. Panellists say there is no second Cold War in the making but admit relations between Russia and the West have hit rock bottom under the very assertive President Vladimir Putin. Balkan countries don’t want to choose but say that staying “neutral” is becoming more and more difficult.As I leave Belgrade it is clear that despite Russia’s siren song, Serbs and other Balkan nationals firmly believe that they belong to the EU. “What’s your destination?” the very kind hotel receptionist asks me as I check out. “Brussels,” I tell him. “Just like for Serbia,” he says.